[governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

It is quite debatable whether several of the proposals or statements that emanate from the usual rump minority here are anywhere near definable as "public interest".

And there, I suspect, is the rub.  Entirely besides the political maneuvring, which is another point of friction.

--srs (iPad)

On 11-Jun-2013, at 16:30, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 11/06/13 18:35, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Unfortunately there doesn`t seem to be even the most minimal agreement on this list concerning the nature of the public interest with respect to the Internet and Internet Governance (or even if there is a public interest with respect to Internet Governance). It has thus proven to be fundamentally impossible to ``do something productive``.
> 
> There is some guidance in the IGC Charter about what members are expected to be signing up for when self-asserting their membership of the IGC.  The IGC's Vision, for example:
> 
> The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all.
> 
> This is what distinguishes the IGC from other Internet advocacy groups, and we are all expected to subscribe to it, and to the rest of the Charter, when joining the IGC and when affirming our membership.
> 
> Notably, it is not apolitical.  Therefore we shouldn't have to start at square 1 whenever it comes to agreeing on a position that advances the public interest; we can begin by ruling out all the positions that conflict with the Vision, and dismissing them when they hold up consensus.
> 
> Perhaps having reference to this statement when disputes arise could help guide the IGC back onto the rails.  It will not be easy for people to be overruled as being "politically incorrect" vis-a-vis the IGC Charter, but maybe that is a possible way out of the IGC's current morass?
> 
> -- 
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130611/79ae4ad3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t